It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Interesting...
If that's true, it implies that Sony is involved only because MGM can't presently do it on its own. If MGM is able to do it on its own (post-IPO), then they ostensibly would not need an outside distributor in the future.
Having said that, I still assume that if MGM does go public in the future, they the entire company can hypothetically be purchased on the open share market. In such a scenario, the acquirer probably will have all the MGM exclusive distribution rights in their hands - but not sure about this.
Danjaq hold 100% of the rights post 1986. The copyrights to the first 20 film properties are co-owned by Danjaq LLC and MGM, MGM (Their subsidiary UA) remained the studio partner after they acquired UA. The copyrights to Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall and Spectre are shared between Danjaq LLC, MGM, and Sony -Columbia Pictures Industries Inc.
Danjaq LLC and it's sister Company EON could and are the only ones who could make Bond movies without MGM, but they couldn't remake any elements from the prior films which is likely to cover characters created etc. without potential legal suits.
In simple terms. Danjaq LLC (EON) the are the only ones who can make future films as they still have the exclusivity rights originally granted in the deal with Fleming (the intellectual property owner) to make Bond Movies.
Any agreement outside this is made on a film by film basis with it's studio partner and distributor who ultimately finance the film.
A bit of a head warp.
MGM own is 50% of the rights to the films made and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, to date, it also owns the sole distribution rights to Eon's Bond films.
But it is important to remember Danjaq LLC and EON are Sister Companies but not the same company. The Rights to make the films sit with Danjaq LLC under licence to EON. And EON then have the deal with MGM. If it every came to a mass dispute Danjaq LLC could wynd up EON therefore voiding all contracts and Danjaq LLC could then set up a new production company.
No problem, not the easiest business set up in history, but again that goes back to Saltzman spending money before he had it and McCrory milking Bond for all he could. Wouldn't change it though, just adds to the fascination and drama of the whole thing.
At the 1995 Bond convention in New York, MGW said how the Bond series is "a series of series." He didn't go into a lot of detail, but that could imply that Brosnan had his own separate timeline.
To be a bit more precise, Barber said "we continue to develop..." and then listed several movie projects before adding "as well as the 25th installment of the James Bond series."
Also, for a time in 2015, his photo for his verified Twitter account was shot from the neck down, with him holding a stuffed cat and extended one of his pinky fingers like Dr. Evil.
Funny. The Tesla S uses a graphic of the Lotus from TSWLM for some function that I can't recall at the moment. Pretty sure the car isn't submersible.
It's EON's sister company so what?
If BB/MGW are involved with Daniaq it's all the same and probably a construct for technical reasons (tax etc).
Thanks for explaining that. Does EoN's film rights include all the icons like the 007 logo and the Bond theme? ...and the gunbarrel?
I always saw Brosnan as a continuation of Dalton. But I never saw Dalton as the same Bond or
EON/Danjaq created all those trademarks and the gunbarrel it's their TM'S and Trademarks under intellectual property.
Correct Cubby handed it over to him and EON to Barbs. Only directors on both firms are Barbs and Mike. The creative aspect and licences are well wrapped up by Wilson & Broccoli, excellent custodians. Fleming, although desperate to see his creation on the big screen, landed on his feet when he signed off film rights to EON (Cubby & Harry). And I am sure that will continue with Michael 's sons & Barbs daughter who I believe is studying the film industry. Bond will continue to be looked after for another generation.
Utilizing locations like India Greece etc it could work
And make it tighter and more focused, shorter and less action. They could make a great film under or around 2 hours for 150 million dollars, easy. I know because Mad Max and Mission Impossible do it.
Awww
http://deadline.com/2016/06/mgm-reduces-interest-outlays-with-new-1b-credit-facility-1201781219/
Hmm now looking at a director like Guy Richie who isn't cheap but isn't expensive either makes sense
It could have been either even more successful or death. The only appeal for buying UA was the Bond distribution rights it took a while for them to see a return but someomes leap of faith paid off for MGM. Had the likes of Warner Brothers bought UA instead we could have had a lot more Bind films by now. Or a lesser studio may have stalled it further.